(Updated at 1:44 p.m.) BELLEFONTE — Jerry Sandusky’s lawyers argued Thursday that he deserves a new trial because his defense lacked sufficient time to prepare for the first one, but the judge did not immediately rule after an hour-and-a-half hearing.

Attorneys for the former Penn State assistant football coach cited several alleged flaws in the trial, including that they were swamped by about 12,000 pages of documents and other materials, that Judge John Cleland should have instructed jurors about the years it took for victims to report he had abused them and that hearsay evidence was improperly allowed.

But prosecutors countered by showing most of the documents and records were not relevant to trial. They also got defense attorney Joe Amendola to admit that even after reviewing them after trial he did not find any that he would have used at trial.

Prosecutor Frank Fina told Cleland that the issue of “failure to report” by the victims was a major theme during the trial. It was brought up during both parties’ opening statements and closing arguments and during cross-examination of the eight victims who testified against Sandusky, he said.

He said Amendola’s performance at trial, and his questioning of witnesses, are evidence that a fair trial took place even though the case moved from arrest to verdict in about eight months.

“He used everything he had to cross-examine these young men,” Fina said.

Gelman noted that some of the victims waited more than a decade to disclose their abuse.

“This is a long, long time not to make some kind of report ... and it goes to their credibility,” Gelman said.

But Amendola, who testified Thursday, said the timetable did not permit sufficient investigation into the accusers’ backgrounds. He also described a scramble to cope with a string of pretrial hearings while trying to adequately analyze the discovery materials. At one point his copier even broke down.

“Did we look at the material? Yes, we glanced over it,” he said under questioning by Gelman.

Amendola recounted how he and co-counsel Karl Rominger sought unsuccessfully to be taken off the case, evidence of their frustration over how quickly things were moving.

Sandusky, 68, attended the hearing but played no active role in the proceedings. He briefly greeted his wife and supporters beforehand.

Sandusky was convicted in June of 45 counts of child sexual abuse and is serving a 30- to 60-year sentence at a state prison about 200 miles away from the courthouse in Bellefonte. He has maintained his innocence.

Cleland did not indicate when he might rule. If Sandusky does not get a new trial — he is also asking to have charges thrown out entirely — he can then appeal to Superior Court, and has indicated he will.

Sandusky’s arrest tarnished the university’s vaunted football program and led to the firing of longtime coach Joe Paterno, who died nearly a year ago from lung cancer.

After the hearing, Gelman compared Sandusky’s odds to a 3-point shot in basketball, while Fina downplayed the defense’s chances of success.

“I think the people of Pennsylvania can be confident this conviction is going to stand,” Fina told reporters.

EARLIER VERSION OF THIS STORY

BELLEFONTE — The judge who sentenced Jerry Sandusky to at least 30 years in prison will hear his lawyers and prosecutors argue over whether the former Penn State assistant football coach got a fair trial.

A smiling Sandusky, making his first public appearance in three months, arrived at the courthouse shortly before 9 a.m. Thursday. He contends his lawyers did not have enough time to prepare for the trial that resulted in a 45-count guilty verdict in June.

The hearing Thursday in Bellefonte was expected to delve into the legal challenges filed by Sandusky’s lawyers, including their claim that a deluge of prosecution materials swamped the defense.

He is serving his sentence at Greene State Prison in the state’s southwest corner, nearly 200 miles away. The 68-year-old Sandusky maintains his innocence.

In a recent brief, Sandusky’s lawyers said the state Supreme Court has ruled that defense attorneys have to undertake “reasonable investigations” or make decisions that those investigations aren’t needed.

“Given the vast amount of material the prosecution turned over at the 11th hour, it is clear counsel could not come close to fulfilling this obligation,” wrote attorneys Joe Amendola and Norris Gelman. “Counsel had no time to review the aforesaid material in search of persons who could testify to the poor reputation for truthfulness on the part of any of the complainants, any alibi, or any connection between the complainants that would impair their credibility.”

The defense lawyers asked for the hearing to develop that issue with testimony and exhibits as they seek a new trial.

The attorney general’s office argued in a brief last week that Sandusky and his attorney knew in 2008 that there had been a report of a sexual assault, there was no breakdown in communication between them, and the case rested on the credibility of the victims.

Sandusky “identifies not a single act that counsel could have performed or a single piece of information that would have been learned with more time before trial that would have had any impact whatsoever on the jury’s consideration of the evidence,” wrote prosecutor James Barker.

The defense lawyers also are challenging hearsay testimony by a janitorial supervisor who told jurors that a co-worker had seen Sandusky raping a boy known as Victim 8, who has never been identified by authorities. They argue that Judge John Cleland should have issued jury instructions on how long it took victims to report their abuse.

And they say some of the charges were so general and nonspecific that they should have been dismissed.

“In this case, the commonwealth established the dates to the extent feasible, given that the events took place over a number of years and involved a number of young victims,” Barker responded. “In both the criminal informations and in other materials provided to the defense, the commonwealth narrowed the scope of the timeframe as to each victim and permitted Sandusky to raise his defense.”

Gelman said Sandusky has waived other claims that were brought up in a defense filing made shortly after he was sentenced. Those issues include whether the statute of limitations had run out on some of the charges, whether his sentence was excessive and whether jurors should have been sequestered.

The judge can rule from the bench or issue a written decision later, Gelman said.

Unlike the trial and sentencing, electronic devices of all kinds were barred from the courtroom Thursday under an order Cleland issued, citing violations of previous courtroom decorum rules by reporters.